CTGreybeard wrote:If this idea triggers your sort of response then it is probably better to drop it as a suggestion. Not that there is anything wrong at all with your response but copyright is too complex to bring into a discussion here on the forums!

Copyright has been discussed a lot on the forums already. It's better here than in PMs.

All I can offer is the guidance from the wiki, which Waze wrote, regarding not using Google aerials/data. Waze has removed an entire country worth of roads from the Waze map due to copying before. Using the same type or similar data from Bing is, IMO, no different.

I was working on a little neighborhood near me this afternoon. This one right here.

The problem with it was that the little cul-de-sacs were named correctly but incorrectly placed. Chelsea Ct, for instance, went right through that house next to Rollingwood Dr and Falmouth Ct was also displaced and not shaped correctly.

To help fix it I used Bing maps which did have the correct, or close, configuration but I needed to go back and forth between the two to get the streets realigned.

What I'd love to have is a Bing Overlay layer that shows the current Bing streets at the same zoom to help with alignment. In this case the Bing map was a Wintertime aerial view and the trees didn't mask the streets as much. This made it much easier to see the problems and solutions. Bing maps aren't the absolute authority but they can provide guidance; having an overlay would save having to pop back and forth between the two maps.

I've run into this a few times now and thought I'd see if I could get it "on the list" ...

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:You can't copy bing data like that just like any other copyrighted source.

Well, I'm pretty familiar with copyright and what I was doing does not violate Bing's copyright. But that's not a discussion for here.

But what I was looking for was a little guidance, not to copy directly. It is the aerials that drive the placement lacking drive traces, etc.

If this idea triggers your sort of response then it is probably better to drop it as a suggestion. Not that there is anything wrong at all with your response but copyright is too complex to bring into a discussion here on the forums!